Im new in sfs forum

[Jebediah K.]

This is the P21 Assassin Combat Ship, a strong combat ship for a posible future pvp multiplayer (its just an idea).

Im working on a planet pack too...

 

[Pink]

Even a fighter ship shouldn't have such a high TWR.

 

[Chara-cter]

This is the P21 Assassin Combat Ship, a strong combat ship for a posible future pvp multiplayer (its just an idea).


View attachment 42790
View attachment 42791

Im working on a planet pack too...

Very cool!
I think you should add something like a docking port at the front of the gun (the separators part) for easier reloading. You can then throw those docking ports away after reloading

Even a fighter ship shouldn't have such a high TWR.

I guess he wanted quick acceleration. I heard that fighters irl can accelerate pretty fast (around 4-6G as I remember, I could be wrong :T)

 

[Pink]

I guess he wanted quick acceleration. I heard that fighters irl can accelerate pretty fast (around 4-6G as I remember, I could be wrong :T)

Yup, but the acceleration when the fuel tanks are empty will kill the pilot if you have a starting TWR of 5+.

 

[Altaïr]

I guess he wanted quick acceleration. I heard that fighters irl can accelerate pretty fast (around 4-6G as I remember, I could be wrong :T)

Yes and no. To my knowledge A fighter rarely has a TWR above 1. The high g forces a pilot experiment rather comes from the centrifugal force from maneuvers.

A solution would be to pretend it's a drone, aka if the pilot's health is a problem, then remove the pilot

 

[Pink]

Drones are superior anyway!

So, useful feedback...
It's best if you make the ship able to turn quickly without much effort. Either with RCS or probes/capsules.

Thing is, for those things to work effectively, they need to be far from the centre of mass.

So either make your fighter long and skinny, with probes and RCS on each end, or short and wide with the probes and RCS at the ends of the 'wings'.
The least optimal shape is like a square, because then you can't put the probes/RCS where they work best.

 

[Altaïr]

Drones are superior anyway!

So, useful feedback...
It's best if you make the ship able to turn quickly without much effort. Either with RCS or probes/capsules.

Thing is, for those things to work effectively, they need to be far from the centre of mass.

So either make your fighter long and skinny, with probes and RCS on each end, or short and wide with the probes and RCS at the ends of the 'wings'.
The least optimal shape is like a square, because then you can't put the probes/RCS where they work best.

Then I suppose long is better than wide, because if it's a fighter, it's better to show the lowest cross sectional area to the opponent...

 

[Jebediah K.]

In fact, its controlled by a probe

And it needs infinity fuel to work, the separators are only for a quickly escape if the side thrusters were damage.

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Even a fighter ship shouldn't have such a high TWR

Why not? The quicker a craft can stop, go and change direction the better.

I guess he wanted quick acceleration. I heard that fighters irl can accelerate pretty fast (around 4-6G as I remember, I could be wrong :T)

The high g forces a pilot experiment rather comes from the centrifugal force from maneuvers.

fighter rarely has a TWR above 1

Correct. Most of the current and next generation of superiority fighters (from the F-15 onwards) have a 'combat'(roughly 60% fuel capacity, full weapons load) power to weight of 1.1 and above. The idea being is the ability to just burn out of trouble, gain altitude or to get into position gives a huge advantage in air-combat.

Yup, but the acceleration when the fuel tanks are empty will kill the pilot if you have a starting TWR of 5+.

Depends. That's only 5g. Now you're gonna mention of combat jets are (usually) rated to a maximum of about 9g because of crew and structural limits, but the structures can be made stronger. And as for the crew, that 9g is only a hard limit if the g forces are exerted downwards (viewed from the pilots perspective) before the pilot blacks out.
Exert that force in a different direction and different things happen. For example, negative g is worse than positive g as the blood rushes to the brain and causes the eyes and brain to fill with blood (called a red out). This happens well before 9g (pilot depending, about 5g).
On the other side, forward/backward/left/right acceleration doesn't affect the body as much (on average, a human can sustain 4 times more g in this position) and they've looked into alternative seating arrangements for pilots so they're 'laid down' to increase the roll and turn g the aircraft can perform.

Bearing in mind as well, you all build your fighters in your traditional nose forward, fly forward style. Space combat is a true 3 dimensional battlespace. It's not Star Wars. Your X-Wings starfighters can and should fly backwards, sidewards and allwards. I think the cockpit should be centralised (think Last Starfighter) and gyro-stabilised (the cockpit area rotates to orientate the pilot) to minimise the effect g forces has on him during excessive thrust inputs.

So either make your fighter long and skinny, with probes and RCS on each end, or short and wide with the probes and RCS at the ends of the 'wings'.
The least optimal shape is like a square, because then you can't put the probes/RCS where they work best.

If the square is the same width/length as the long and skinny/short and wide crafts, then it's going to have the same off centre leverage...

Then I suppose long is better than wide, because if it's a fighter, it's better to show the lowest cross sectional area to the opponent...

Depends on the view perspective. Concorde is a very long and very wide object, but has a tiny frontal cross-section. Pains of a 2D game sadly.

 

[jerome_the_sfs_boss]

Noice design

 

[Vi...]

It is very good and helpful to me